Crosswords1 min ago
Zero drink drive limit?
http://news.sky.com/s...C_MPs_Report_Suggests
Personally I don't want to get nicked for using mouthwash so I'd go with a trace amount but generally I think it's a good idea. You can currently drink a surprising amount and still be legal which i clearlt wrong.
Personally I don't want to get nicked for using mouthwash so I'd go with a trace amount but generally I think it's a good idea. You can currently drink a surprising amount and still be legal which i clearlt wrong.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I confess i did not read your link R1 - I have read it now.
I am sure it is not beyond the ability of medical science to examine the stomach bowel and bladder of anyone suspected if drink driving, and to ascertain if the alcohol was produced internally, or introduced externally - the savings in medical costs, not to say to humanity, would make that worthwhile.
I am sure it is not beyond the ability of medical science to examine the stomach bowel and bladder of anyone suspected if drink driving, and to ascertain if the alcohol was produced internally, or introduced externally - the savings in medical costs, not to say to humanity, would make that worthwhile.
I personally think that a zero tolerance of ANY alcohol in someone's system would be unfair and largely unworkable as it would be possible to be over the zero limit for a huge number of reasons. I don't personally drink very often and never drink drive, not even when I had a problem with alcohol, but I would consider it to be too draconian to suggest that there is a zero limit not in any small part because there are far more hazardous things you can do to distract you (text, smoke, eat, drink coke, change your radio channel etc ) and a balance needs to be struck whereby we consider any potential risk to pedestrians and other road users without criminalising people who have no intention of behaving in a reckless way and who simply might have had something to drink the day before.
Ardent lawbreakers who think they can drink whatever they like and that the law doesn't apply to them are the people we should be targetting, not someone who has half a shandy.
Ardent lawbreakers who think they can drink whatever they like and that the law doesn't apply to them are the people we should be targetting, not someone who has half a shandy.
-- answer removed --
Actually Geezer, i have to confess to a degree of mischief here.
I have pursued my point well beyond reason, primarly because i found butch's airy dismissal to be annoying, and i have tried - without success - to provoke him into providing a reasonable argument.
No matter, it has been done perfectly succinctly by NOX - i am impressed.
I know my idea is draconian and unworkable - it is simply a notion for an ideal world, which of course, is not something we live in, or would necessarily want to.
Thanks for a most stimulating thread - most enjoyable.
Back to my old self now ...
I have pursued my point well beyond reason, primarly because i found butch's airy dismissal to be annoying, and i have tried - without success - to provoke him into providing a reasonable argument.
No matter, it has been done perfectly succinctly by NOX - i am impressed.
I know my idea is draconian and unworkable - it is simply a notion for an ideal world, which of course, is not something we live in, or would necessarily want to.
Thanks for a most stimulating thread - most enjoyable.
Back to my old self now ...
Hopkirk posted a message some time ago that the body does produce alcohol - indeed it does and we handle the effect of ethanol in different ways. In Norway, which has one of the strictest limits, there are folk who carry special dispensation as there natural alcohol levels are above the minimum.
Yes, it probably does need to be lower - my suggestion is why dont they lower to a specific level and then insist that cars are fitted with an inhaler witha detector - in this day and age, some system must be important - and if someone else other has breathed into the system, life ban......
Whilst I am on - yes toughen up mobile fines - and do what the States does, 20 mph in school and hospital areas, as well as residential. And on the first two, double penalties for any infringement within the designated zones. I remember going on a TRC defensive driving course, near Reading (excellent and run by ex police) and it was pointed out that the death/serious accident rate is more than halved by lowering from 30 to 20 mph.
Yes, it probably does need to be lower - my suggestion is why dont they lower to a specific level and then insist that cars are fitted with an inhaler witha detector - in this day and age, some system must be important - and if someone else other has breathed into the system, life ban......
Whilst I am on - yes toughen up mobile fines - and do what the States does, 20 mph in school and hospital areas, as well as residential. And on the first two, double penalties for any infringement within the designated zones. I remember going on a TRC defensive driving course, near Reading (excellent and run by ex police) and it was pointed out that the death/serious accident rate is more than halved by lowering from 30 to 20 mph.
I doubt that it is beyond science Andy. But every man and his wife will run that defence which will cost thousands on legal aid (for those that qualify). At the very least it will result in blood tests being required rather than standard breath tests - again a huge cost. And for what benefit? I would be interested in any statistics where drivers under the limit were involved in accidents where drink was a significant factor (apart from the one cited in the article).
Whilst I agree that it should be zero, I think on a purely practical level setting the level significantly lower, but more than 0 should knock out the "mouth freshener, sherry trifle, cough medicine, occurring naturally etc" defences. I would have thought it is possible to set a level of (say) 5mg - as opposed to the current level of 35mg.
The article proposes 20mg in blood (currently it's 80) and I'd say that that was entirely reasonable. In my view (and it is only a guess, I have no empirical data) that would probably avoid prosecution of those where it does occur naturally, mouth wash etc but would automatically catch anyone who has actually consumed alcohol - however long before it was. The boffins would need to look carefully at the levels first.
We have to look at the mischief the law is there for - it is there to make the roads safer. If someone can lose their licence, home and career for having over indulged on the Listerine that is wrong. However, if they go out and drink and CHOOSE to drive, that is entirely proper.
Whilst I agree that it should be zero, I think on a purely practical level setting the level significantly lower, but more than 0 should knock out the "mouth freshener, sherry trifle, cough medicine, occurring naturally etc" defences. I would have thought it is possible to set a level of (say) 5mg - as opposed to the current level of 35mg.
The article proposes 20mg in blood (currently it's 80) and I'd say that that was entirely reasonable. In my view (and it is only a guess, I have no empirical data) that would probably avoid prosecution of those where it does occur naturally, mouth wash etc but would automatically catch anyone who has actually consumed alcohol - however long before it was. The boffins would need to look carefully at the levels first.
We have to look at the mischief the law is there for - it is there to make the roads safer. If someone can lose their licence, home and career for having over indulged on the Listerine that is wrong. However, if they go out and drink and CHOOSE to drive, that is entirely proper.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Man Told He Is Not British After 42...
News4 mins ago
Crosswords15 mins ago
Technology15 mins ago